Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday February 19, 2011 @04:57PM
from the under-arrest-by-the-humor-police dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Evan Emory, a 21-year-old aspiring musician, edited together video of him singing a G-rated song to a bunch of giggling school kids with video of him singing a song with sexually explicit lyrics, and posted it on YouTube. For this stupid joke, donemanytimesbyprofessionalcomedians (all NSFW, obviously), and admittedly done without getting permission from the children shown 'hearing' him sing naughty words, he was arrested and could face 20 years in prison as a sex offender. On the pretext of looking for 'souvenirs' of child sexual abuse, his house has been searched by police, and the Muskegon County (Michigan) Prosecutor has insinuated (with no further evidence) that Emory actually wants to have sex with children and claims he 'victimized every single child in that classroom.' Emory insists he had no such intention."

The best thing to come out of that was the media reaction to it. The Daily Star couldn't make its mind up whether it was for or against paedophilia as shown here [cream.org]. The Daily Fail [dailymail.co.uk] as ever was keen to contradict itself by publishing a shock reaction to the satire, while in the same issue publishing pictures of Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie (13 & 11) in their bikinis.

And while we're at it, every parent whose child has walked in on them while having sex. I dare say that exposing them to the act is MUCH more damaging to a child than what the video appeared to be, post-edit. Then, let's up the ante; any child who has witnessed one of their parents being abused by the other; after all, being exposed to something is just as bad as being an actual victim of the act.

Back to reality now. This is absolutely ridiculous. Let's assume, for a moment, that he did actually perfor

Remember how the Iranians arrested 3 American hikers and accused them of being spies? Although there's no evidence of that? How they put up a kangaroo trial where the outcome would be clear: "guilty"?

You might know that, but do you know about the Afghanis and Iraqis who were arrested by coalition forces and were accused of being terrorists although the only evidence of that is the word of a pissed-off neighbor trying to get rid of them? How the Military put up a kangaroo trial ("Military commissions") where the outcome would be clear: "guilty"? Even with the intervention of the US justice system, some of them have still been locked in cages for 9+ years, and the Obama administration said, "even if they're not convicted, we can't release them."

The prosecutor, the arresting officer, the officers that entered the home, and the lawyers in the courtroom (excepting the lawyer defending the victim) would automatically be sentenced to 1 month in prison for violating Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 14 of the Supreme Law of the land, as well as violating the Michigan Constitution, and their oaths.

PLUS the State would be required to give this victim $10,000 as recompense for his inconvenience of time spent in jail, his house ransacked, plus any lost wages incurred as a result of not being able to report to work. And of course pay for his court fees.

Failure to pay the monies to the victim would be considered contempt-of-court, and the responsible persons sent to 1 year additional jailtime.

While not the exact thing you're saying is possible, something along those lines could be possible. This seems like a malicious prosecution. Since IAAL, I would unofficially say without having read up on my Michigan case law, I think at least a strong admonishment is in order, and I would double check the statute on malicious prosecution in Michigan... oh wait here it is:

"600.2907 Malicious prosecution or action; civil liability, penalty. Sec. 2907.
Every person who shall, for vexation and trouble or maliciously, cause or procure any other to be arrested, attached, or in any way proceeded against, by any process or civil or criminal action, or in any other manner prescribed by law, to answer to the suit or prosecution of any person, without the consent of such person, or where there is no such person known, shall be liable to the person so arrested, attached or proceeded against, in treble the amount of the damages and expenses which, by any verdict, shall be found to have been sustained and incurred by him; and shall be liable to the person in whose name such arrest or proceeding was had in the sum of $200.00 damages, and shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable on conviction by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months."

So, looks like a misdemeanor. There could be professional responsibility sanctions separately brought through the Michigan Bar.

My other cent.
No reasonable attorney under the circumstances would interpret the law as this prosecutor has interpreted it. If I were representing him, I would move to dismiss w/ prejudice ASAP, as it is clearly not a valid charge, or move to have the charging document clarified as to how the action is a violation of the law. This is called several things in several states. But if your information or indictment fails to clearly state a claim, it needs to be clarified or dismissed. If those don't work, move to dismiss based on the fact that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, overly broad, etc. That usually isn't a winner because you can use the reasonable person standard, but it really sounds like it is completely vague in this case.

This is one of the few times if I were a judge I would dismiss the case at arraignment or first appearance(bond hearing). That almost never happens, ever. The fact that this man hat to pay any bond is also a mystery to me. Is he honestly a flight risk?

That's probably why the search of the home. A fishing trip. The prosecutor knew the case was weak, and just wanted to see if there was something, anything, he could use to either strengthen it or force a plea.

By railroading this guy, what the Muskegon County Prosecutor is actually doing is weakening the severity of real child abuse in the public's mind by diluting it with dumb but ultimately harmless comedy.

Unfortunately, in the US that's how it's done. Same goes for sexual abuse in general, the occurrence of a stranger doing it by force only represents a small minority of total cases. But because it's easier to get funding for abuse prevention programs decrying that as the norm, individuals who weren't subjected to such obviously wrong conduct end up doubting that they've got a legitimate right to help.

The Trauma Myth [wikipedia.org] It's a hard read but the author covers the topic far better than I could hope to here.

I didn't read the book but the WikiPedia summary [wikipedia.org] of the book makes it sound like child sexual abuse is no big deal when in fact it is a very big deal.

While the book's author is largely correct "that later in life, after the memories are processed, examined, and more fully understood, the experience becomes traumatic" this is precisely why child sexual abuse IS a big deal.

The fact that it is a delayed trauma does not make it non-traumatic, except perhaps to people who die fairly quickly after the abuse happened, before their sub-conscious or conscious mind reacts to it.

Another factor not addressed in the summary which I hope the book covers is the harm done by the ongoing subconscious processing of the experience before the conscious processing happens. This may come out as stress, physical ailments, physically aggressive or other socially inappropriate non-sexual behavior (socially inappropriate sexual behavior is easily explained by "daddy did it to me, it must be okay if I do it to someone else"), and the like well before the child consciously processes the fact that she was abused. I say "she" as most child-sex-abuse victims are female, but the same goes for male victims.

Also, the Wikipedia article says "[Susan] Clancy [the book's author] concludes that since sexual abuse of children is not violent per se." If Clancy does indeed say this then she is just plain wrong or she restricts himself to only certain definitions of violence. In my book, violence does not have to be physical or even overtly coercive. Any act which violates another person without being, on balance, good is in my book an act of violence. Parents and other caretakers frequently violate the personal autonomy of children, it is a necessary part of proper child-rearing. The "on balance good" test covers things like forcing a child to endure pain while he gets his vaccinations, forcing a child to go to bed at a certain time, and all the other things that parents and others can and must to in order to be responsible caretakers.

That's really the problem, the assumption that it needs to be traumatic in order for it to be wrong. The only reason why there's trauma in many of the cases she talks about is because of the degree to which professionals make unsubstantiated assertions about what it's like. The reality is that if there weren't so many messages being sent to kids that if they liked it or weren't completely horrified and traumatized that it's there fault is where the trauma comes from.

I haven't read or even heard of the book before, but just reading the wikipedia article about the author confirms my initial thought that a *very* short summary of her thesis might be that the actual crime of child abuse may be compounded many times over by the constant barrage of people telling the victim that they ought to be severely traumatised actually makes them far more traumatised than they would otherwise be, in a manner reminiscent of the way that deluded, obsessive, or even outright malicious "therapists" *create* False Memory Syndrome [wikipedia.org] in susceptible people.

i.e. that the crime of abuse may have happened, but that the trauma may be partly or even wholly created after the fact.

it's not even a particularly surprising or unusual thesis...the Satanic Ritual Abuse [wikipedia.org] moral panic of the 1980s clearly shows that it's possible to create such trauma even in children who *haven't* been sexually abused.

You know, when you treat it as an isolated thing, what you're saying is reasonable.

But there are a lot of unintended consequences to what seems like an absurd moral panic.

Read this thread, just down a little further, and then balance what is in it with what is written above. A whole new generation will grow up with no male role models at all. None, at least none that are sane. People who don't particularly like kids but might volunteer just to be a good guy... there is NO WAY in hell those guys are going to volunteer to work with kids now.

What is the result? Kids raised in sterile environments, by all-female troops of social workers? Males who are still willing to volunteer are MUCH more likely to have ulterior motives, people get even more suspicious of males... ad infinitum, until the insanity is backed down a few notches.

While in isolation, this reaction seems reasonable, I would like to point out that the hyper-paranoia that comes along with this moral dillemma might have something to do with the relative decline of youth productivity and behavior during the last 20 years. English speaking countries have unusually high levels of childhood obesity, childhood suicide and relatively low performance metrics in a variety of things such as education.

Perhaps they're ALL completely unrelated, but the culture of fear surely can't help.

When I think about having kids and raising them, I think that I would prefer I was in the 1940s or 1950s. I know that the kids are MUCH safer today. The rates of violence are SO much lower now than they were in the 1950s, but I feel like that comes at the expense of the "human" factor. It does "take a village" to raise a child, and that is NOT a village full of background-checked female-only therapists and social workers under constant supervision.

My grandfather talks fondly of the old man down the road, who was a mechanic, who used to keep a bowl of candy in his shop so the local kids would come by. You could have some candy, but you had to sit and talk with him for a bit. My grandfather ended up becoming friends with him and ended up later crediting him with the inspiration to start his business, which made him wealthy.

This would not be possible today. In fact, this guy would have the police kicking in his door.

That's no the right reaction.

It's not the THERAPY that is hurting kids. By all means, give the kids some means to talk about abuse, yes yes yes yes.

But FUCK, do we have to dismantle society in the process, because we're so afraid of it?

To me, this is a much greater issue than any one individual (or group of individuals) getting therapy...

It's the ability to move past it and say "yeah, that sucked and therapy is good, but I'm really doing alright today."

Our very western society is going down the drain because our law-givers want make rules for everything and every conceivable situation. That is not freedom. Nor does it promote acting responsibly towards one's fellow man, let alone towards children.

The most important factor in dealing with people is using one's common sense. Unfortunately, when emotionally hot topics are concerned - like child abuse, terrorism presently, and the famous non-existing WMDs in Iraq, the Red Scare or the fe

On the use of the word she: Another post in this thread reminded me that female victims significantly outnumber male victims - about 2- or 3- to one according to one 15-year-old study, so I switched from the gender-neutral pronoun "he" to the gender-specific pronoun "she." No gender bias was intended.

I take issue with your unjustified assumption that people process events subconsciously over many years

I've known enough people for which this is true and I've read enough that I don't consider this assumption unjustified, at least not in my mind.

. I contend that people's perception of the past is always colored by their current worldview and socialization, which of course changes over time.

The fact that it is a delayed trauma does not make it non-traumatic, except perhaps to people who die fairly quickly after the abuse happened, before their sub-conscious or conscious mind reacts to it.

Maybe so, but the fact that the trauma is being experienced by an adult would tend to suggest that the action that caused it can't be considered "child abuse". If this kind of abuse has no effect on the child, then we seriously need to reconsider whether it's a crime deserving of a 20 year sentence and a lifetime of stigmatization.

Notice that I said "if". I'm not actually convinced that child sexual exploitation isn't harmful - I'd have to see a lot more data before I accepted that premise - but IF that p

One possible reason it can take until your adulthood for the effects to be seen is because your childhood mind represses something it simply can't deal with at a psychological level. The child either "forgets" what happened while the subconscious absorbs and understands what's happened, manifesting the trauma later in life, or they fracture. Sexual abuse in childhood is currently thought to be one of the leading triggers for Dissociative Identity Disorder [wikimedia.org] (multiple personalities), and the current research suggests that it's possible to live well into your adult life before you even become aware of an "other" sharing your body (and you may never be aware of it, though those around you may see it)

The human psyche is something we're only barely beginning to understand. There's so much more work to be done in the field before it's as well understood as something like electricity... That said, there is a lot of evidence out there to support the idea that just because it can take years or decades for an event to actually affect your behaviour does not mean that the change in behaviour/psyche was not caused by that event. There could be a trigger later in life that brings a suppressed memory back into your conscious mind (it's well known that smell can sometimes trigger long-forgotten memories, for example), or it could simply work its way back into the foreground on its own.

And what do you think is the reason it is perceived as traumatic only later in life? Could it have anything to do with the insane extremist trauma culture that equates consensual non-violent sexual activity at a young age to the equivalent of watching your mother being decapitated in front of you? It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

For the record I'm not stating that it isn't wrong, but just that the ridiculous and drastic overreactions of modern society to it have gone on long enough.

How can a "stranger" abuse a child without abducting them? The only conceivable scenario for that is if you are home asleep and they break into your home, abuse them in the house, then leave before anyone notices. I'd assert that the incidence of that is zero. Otherwise, they must abduct them or they weren't "strangers."

The stats use "stranger" to indicate people who were invited into the house or for whom permission was given for the child to be alone with. Even if not well known, I think that makes them non-strangers. The people who define the crimes define "someone who the parents have met and are willing to leave their child alone with voluntarily" as a stranger in order to increase the number of "stranger" crimes to increase fear.

I'd imagine that good ol' Tony wasn't too happy about his ongoing failures appearing on television every night, but the Evan Emory case buys him a nice little reprieve, never mind if it distracts law enforcement resources from finding a serial killer. If your feeling frisky, I'd suggest calling his office to tell him that his little stunt isn't fooling anyone.

By railroading this guy, what the Muskegon County Prosecutor is actually doing is weakening the severity of real child abuse in the public's mind by diluting it with dumb but ultimately harmless comedy.

Gee, I wonder why he would possibly want to do that....

Without knowing the particulars of this particular case, I still feel free to speculate that it's because the Muskegon County Prosecutor, a man named Tony Tague, is a self-promoting sleaze who loves nothing better than to get his name in the papers.

I grew up in Muskegon County. Tague became prosecutor about the time I left to go to college, 20 years ago or so, and during that time he has repeatedly shown a penchant for pushing the envelope and excersising his considerable prosecutorial discretion to criminalize behavior in any case where he can whip up public outrage -- the first one I can remember was when he elected to prosecute a pregnant drug addict for delivery of cocaine to a minor -- her unborn child.

His "family values" and "tough on crime" posturing resonate with a certain portion of the local electorate but I wouldn't describe the area as particularly prudish or inordinately socially conservative. It's less that the community is really up in arms about such things and more that Tague loves the publicity such cases bring and has been successful throughout his career in exploiting such cases to mobilize a certain segment of the electorate. Besides the sleaziness of such tactics, it's also pretty hard on the individuals who are singled out to advance his political career.

And you obviously don't have children. I have a son. I wouldn't have gone bonkers (and I'd be calling for the kiddie porn charges to be dropped), but I'd have some choice words for this guy for filming my kid for commercial gain under false pretenses.

The moral of the story is this: If you are a male (especially a single white male over 30) in the 21st century, do not go anywhere near children. Don't look at them, don't talk to them, don't get within 50 feet of them (especially if you own a camera, even if you leave the camera at home). For the love of God, don't be in a public toilet if one happens to come in, even if Dad is there with him and especially if Dad doesn't come in with him. Do not interact with them in any way, even virtually, such as re-dubbing a video, drawing a picture, mentioning children in an e-mail, nothing. More and more often, this includes your own children.

Remember, all men are automatically guilty even if they've done nothing wrong!

Sadly, this feels all too true. I have a 2 1/2 year old daughter. I am a 28 year old male. I'm in a happy, stable marriage with my wife. Nothing that I can see is unusual about me in anyway. That said, when I take my daughter alone to McDonalds, or the grocery store, or the park, or (heaven forbid it) the bathroom it often feels that every eye is on me. I see other moms with their kids staring at me and I like to make myself think they are thinking "why doesn't my husband take our kids anywhere", but in reality I know they are probably thinking "I better keep an eye on that guy, he is alone with a little girl. He may be her dad, but who knows and even if he is, all men are sexual predators because that is what the media tells me."

"It was a boneheaded stunt and while I don't think it should qualify as sexual abuse, I have no problem with him being prosecuted at least for taking advantage of the children (I'm sure there are lots of protective statutes he violated) and investigated. Considering he thinks that mixing kids with sexual material is funny and has shown a propensity to create videos of children, I have no problem with authorities checking him out to make sure he hasn't done anything else like this or worse. I would think they would be negligent if they didn't check him out."

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Whatever happened to "freedom of speech"? Why are you caught up in anti-pedo hysteria that you have forgotten those two extremely important concepts?

By posting the video, he harmed no one. He did NOTHING whatsoever that merits ANY sort of official attention or scrutiny from the police or anyone else. The arrest and charges are pure, simple bullshit. The mere allegation that he is a sexual predator is so chock full of bullshit I can't believe this article isn't a prank. Now his life is ruined because the county prosecutor is a total jackass.

I used to do voluntary work as a youth leader, but wouldn't consider doing so now because the climate of suspicion has got so bad. It would be hard to say how many lost youth programs it would take to balance the cost of one abused child, but I doubt all the suspicion has saved any children from abuse so the equation isn't relevant.

The place where I worked opened a day care center right in the front of the building for children of employees.They built a playground in part of where the parking lot used to be, in front of the entrance.They also had picnic tables for employees who didn;t want to be ramped in the depressing cafeterias during lunch on nice days.

I like kids. I have 6 nieces and a nephew, had a large part in raising my eldest niece, and what it more pleasant and stress reducing than watching a playground full of happy kids? I should add here that I worked for - A TOY COMPANY.

We made toys, we needed to understand kids, we made products for them, needed to see how they interacted with them. And it would be pretty good if you're working at making kids' toys that you - ya'know, kinda LIKE kids, care about them, understand them, be able to see through their eyes, etc. All of that. Would be hard to work for a toy company and not have an understanding of kids.

So I sat out there one day at a picnic table eating my lunch, looking around, sometimes watching the kids play. I was maybe 26 and was also hoping to be a dad someday, I think I would have made a good dad.

The looks I got from people - that was enough, I never went outside for lunch by myself ever again.

For fuck's sake, I was an employee of a toy company on lunch break, and people gave me strange looks for watching the other employee's kids play in the company playground.

There's something wrong when a male of child-rearing age cannot even say "I like kids" without that coming across as creepy to a lot of people.

I am a 44 year old male. I was at the park a while ago and I always take my labrador and my chicken(she's very free range). Two young girls(probably about 12 or 13 years old) came up to me and started to talk to me. They sat down and were patting the chicken who is very tame and interesting. The whole time they were there I was nice and polite but couldn't help wanting them to just fuck off(mostly because they were inane little twits). A lady walked up and complimented me on the dog and talked about the chicken and said it was nice to see a father out with his kids. I said they weren't my children and they had just come up to pat the chicken. She gave me a filthy look and walked away. Fifteen minutes later a police car pulled up at the park wanting to know everything about me and why I was at the park.They weren't shy about trying to claim I was a molester who used my chicken to attract children.
Also, my wife writes children's book and has 26 published. I was pulled over by the side of the road one day talking on my cellphone and a police car pulled up wanting to know what I was doing. One of the cops saw some kid's books in the car and asked me how old my kids where. I responded that I didn't have kids and he asked me if I used the books as bait. So rest assured USA this pedo-hysteria happens in Australia too.

My friend and I once decided to go to a fast food restaurant (at the time we were ages 20 and 21). It was raining and my friend didn't have a coat, as a joke we cut up a garbage bag and he put it on, and even though I had a coat I thought it would be goofy if I wore my girlfriend's lab coat. We took a camera to record people's reactions (note what GP said about cameras) which I put in my vest pocket, where it was quite obvious / visible. We stood in line and placed our order, a few people working in the store thought we looked ridiculous and it was funny.

There was a lady in front of us there with her daughter who looked like she was about 15 that suddenly turned around and accused of taping her daughter for sexual purposes. Her daughter was dressed as a whore but obviously that was not our aim; If we were there to make videos of girls we would probably not wear weird costumes to attract attention to ourselves, and we might actually try to hide the camera. I offered to delete all the video we had shot because I understand some people might be uncomfortable being taped without their consent, but she insisted that we had hidden the pornographic material on the camera and that we wouldn't really delete anything. Her husband called the cops and at that point my friend and I figured we should just stay and explain ourselves to them because if we leave it's going to look like we fled, so we sat around and waited for the cops to show up. They eventually showed up and escorted my friend and I to the squad car where we explained our side of the story. After another half hour of waiting while they talked to the insane lady in the restaurant the cop came back and asked to see the camera which I happily handed over and showed him how to retrieve what was on it. Eventually he let us go, and the restaurant banned us for "causing" a disturbance.

Long story short the moral of the story is that it is a crime to 1) Be male and be near girls under 18 2) Do / wear anything weird 3) Be in possession of a camera. Even though we weren't actually arrested or charged with anything we still had to waste a few hours of our day to deal with the incident and suffer the embarrassment of the situation in public just because we were accused.

The moral of the story is this: If you are a male (especially a single white male over 30) in the 21st century, do not go anywhere near children. Don't look at them, don't talk to them, don't get within 50 feet of them (especially if you own a camera, even if you leave the camera at home).

So true. I was driving through my neighborhood a few weeks ago, and I slowed down leading up to a stop sign as a precaution because of a bunch of kids playing in the street. One of the little bastards shouted "child molester" at me. Such absurd behavior encourages drivers to roll right through the stop sign at 25 MPH and point the noses of their cars directly at the little brats.

Our culture has raised our kids to be so utterly terrified of what amounts to fictional boogeymen that we've forgotten how to actually live our lives. Kids are terrified of strangers because every stranger is just a rapist waiting to pull you into a car, drive off with you, rape you, murder you, and dump the body in a ditch somewhere. This despite the fact that the little bastard's parents are statistically several orders of magnitude more likely to molest him than any single person who drives by. Thankfully, my parents had the good sense to teach me better than that (in spite of the attempt at indoctrination by our local schools). Unfortunately, most parents don't have that much sense because they were indoctrinated themselves as kids. If the trend continues, we're going to be a nation of absolute scaredy-cats who are afraid of our own shadows in just a couple more generations.

The scariest thing about it is realizing that in just a few years, that idiot kid will be able to vote.

And that's how we raise a whole new generation of estranged children who grow up feeling like there is something wrong with them that makes people ignore them. And here I was hoping emo music would die out once and for all...

So true. One day my cable Internet went down (I work at home). My city has WIFI coverage, so I took my laptop to the park directly across the street from my house to get better reception. On the other side of the park (over 150 meters away) is an elementary school.

While I downloaded my email a couple walked past on the way to pick up their child from school. We made small talk about the speed & cost of the city WIFI.

Five minutes later a police officer walked up and began questioning me. He said that a few parents reported a suspicious man in the park near the school with a computer. I told the cop exactly what I was doing -- Using the WIFI I've paid for in a public place. He asked if I was waiting on the children to be let out of school, and if I would mind if he took a look at the computer.

I told him that my fiancée's son goes to a different school, and I had no children of my own. I also refused any searches unless he had a warrant to do so. The officer became visibly aggravated at this point. He called his partner over while he checked my ID and asked asked why I preferred to be working on my computer closer to the school than in the comfort of my own home (across the street). I pointed out the WIFI antenna above my head, explained in detail how signal to noise ratio relates to WIFI speed, and asked his partner if he didn't prefer being couped up in the stuffy police car instead of this park on such a pretty day.

After a questioning me for another half an hour (trying to get me to slip up and say something suspicious?) the officers eventually left me alone. I thanked them for "doing a fine job", and finally realised why I never see anyone in the park. Apparently, being a 30-something male in a public place is suspicious -- especially if the place is a park near a school (regardless of the proximity of your home).

Now there's an idea.... anyone here work for television studios, and want a stunt? Here's one. Set up a few hidden cameras in a street. Get a child actor to hang around and look miserable, cry a bit, and obviously be in distress. Film the manner in which every man carefully avoids approaching or looking at the child, and see how long it takes before someone is finally brave or reckless enough to intervene. Use for a news story about how the culture of fear is endangering children.

Ironically, all staff involved in the production would need to undergo enhanced-disclosure criminal records checks in this country to work with a child.

Protect them from naughty words, video games, television, movies, comic books, music, and pretty much all forms of entertainment in existence. And yet, even with all of this meaningless 'protection', I still don't feel as though I've locked them in a small enough bubble yet. What should we ban/censor next? After all, saying naughty words is bad because naughty words are bad (because I said so). Even though they're just words with meanings like every other word and they won't really hurt them unless they themselves be hurt by them (and as everyone knows, your constitutional rights are being violating if you get offended by something), they mustn't be allowed to hear them! What a great plan! Forget freedom of speech (speech that offends others is clearly prohibited, even though that is extremely subjective and the constitution mentions nothing about that)! This guy's just... a terrorist and a pedophile!

I, personally, think the idea was hilarious and I am in search of the video so I can watch it and laugh. But to the parents and school administration, perhaps this video is insulting and tasteless, at best. Criminal? Felonious? Child pornfuckingography? Are these people INSANE?

... has to have its witch hunt. What I find really odd about it is that some of the same people who now recoil in horror at the thought of what happened during the McCarthyism era will happily toss gasoline onto the pyre of anyone who is accused of pedophilia. Proof isn't an issue anymore; the accusation itself equals certain doom.

It sure seems that modern "crime" investigations need to start with these words: "alright, first: everyone kindly calm the fuck down".

I'm tired of hearing about cases where there is OBVIOUSLY no real victim, yet the "trial" marches on. And it appears that we have a hard time presuming innocence when there's insufficient evidence to convict.

I hope that this isn't an upward trend...maybe this has always happened to some degree, and we only hear about it more now because of the Internet. Either way, it scares the hell out of me and makes me feel like we should be putting the prosecutors on trial instead of the "criminals".

Sec. 145c.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include, or conveys the impression that it includes, a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:
(i) It was created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18.
(ii) It was not created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18, but all of the following apply to that depiction:
(A) The average individual, applying contemporary community standards, would find the depiction, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
(B) The reasonable person would find the depiction, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
(C) The depiction depicts or describes a listed sexual act in a patently offensive way.

It's likely that under the "appears to include a child" standard, the issue will be:

Based on "community standards" would an "average individual" find the video to appeal to "a shameful or morbid interest in sex"?

That seems like a stretch - but the bigger issue (IMO) is the use of the prosecutorial resources for a situation that would be more appropriately handled through civil litigation than criminal prosecution.

I live here in Muskegon, Mi. These are the same people who tore down an 80 yr old retired WW2 veteran's home (basically) because they could not afford to take it by eminent domain @125% of value. It was an historic home. The home was built by the first mayor of the city and was on the city's precious historic trail. The man was a hoarder - a known mental illness- so the house was filthy on the inside. After the first hit by the wrecker the city declared the house structurally unfit and finished demolishing the home.

These people have a nickname -- Gestapo. They are extremists in their puritanical beliefs, and this musician knows this. Therefore he wasn't just being a moron, his actions went to the level of recklessly - moronic - imbecile. He should have moved to Detroit first then did this using a willing classroom out there. Does he deserve 20yrs in prison and the reputation afterwards? Does a guy who puts his hand in a running lawnmower blade deserve to keep his hand? I guess fate plays it's part in these kinds of cases. He lost.

Throughout US history, there have been several episodes of fear, hysteria and scapegoating. The first example is the infamous witch hunts. Post WWII, it was Sen. McCarthy-led anti-communist crusades. The famous playright Arthur Miller made the comparison very clear in his master work The Crucible. Now, it seems pedophiles are the new communists. What better a 'fear fix' than to imagine Pedobear hiding under every bed, lurking in the school staffrooms and coaching your kids' ball teams.

This guy sang in front of kids, then modified that video to appear as if he was saying vulgar things instead. Somehow, this ludicrously construes child abuse or some nonsense. Ok, whatever.

Here's the missing puzzle piece... what if someone ELSE had taken his video, redubbed it, and posted it like that?

Lesson: if you want to do what this guy did, make sure that the redub is posted by a different user that isn't traceable. Apparently this 'crime' only happens if you are both the person who sings to high school kids with permission of the school AND the person who makes the humorous redub later- just don't be BOTH of those people (traceably) and you should be fine.

In the meantime, of course, this is an absurd travesty of the legal system.

Then charge him with criminal trespass. Charging him with creating child pornography is ludicrously overboard and beyond idiotic as I seriously, seriously doubt he had any kind of sexual motivation whatsoever. It was a joke and he never actually sang the explicit lyrics to the children. The guy's a dick, and perhaps prosecution is in order, but let the charges actually fit the crime.

Debatable. He probably didn't lie per se, but rather simply failed to volunteer some key details. "I'd like to come sing for the children" vs " I'd like to come sing for the children, and then edit the video to appear as though I sang a much less appropriate song for comedic purposes". IANAL, but both are true in the technical sense.

That is criminal trespass under almost any jurisdiction you could name.

Even if we were to conclude he lied, and what you say here is true -- two big if's -- it still wouldn't matter. Criminal Trespass is not what he's being charged with and it's not a crime which carries a 20 year prison sentence and listing on a sex offender registry.

Without permission, he used an empty classroom as a stage for his sexually explicit performance. That again is criminal trespass.

He had permission -- not necessarily from the school itself, but from an employee of the school who was his friend.

Without anyone's informed consent he edited videos of six and seven year old kids into his adolescent and obsene music video.

Poor judgment perhaps, but at *worst* this is a civil matter -- not a criminal one.

The video makes these kids part of the performance ---

and that is all that Michigan law requires for prosecution on the felony charge.

A court will decide that, but expect that if it agrees with you that another court will be asked to decide if the law itself can possibly be constitutional.

The video was posted to YouTube and played to a local comedy club. That looks less like a prank and more like commercial exploitation.

Irrelevant to anything. Again, if he's using people's likeness for a commercial gain, that might be a civil matter -- but never a criminal one.

His video depicted him saying sexual remarks to children. Whether or not they were actually there doesn't really matter.

Are you serious or is your interpretation of the law just warped? First of all I'd like to see you actually cite any real laws that are remotely on your side. If someone is depicting something that isn't real, then my interpretation is that you can't charge them for the act. See in Hollywood there are things called "special effects" in which things don't really happen. Like in any teen slasher movie, that 16 year old (played by a 22 year old) that got decapitated by the villain didn't really happen. Ot

I have no doubt that there are people who would approve of any arbitrary law as long as they profited from it. However, if that same law unduly imposes against another, that support is the result of a lack of integrity on the part of the supporter.

highly exagerated example:

Person X owns slaves, because law Z permits him to own them, and damnit, being able to force people to clean up after you is damn convenient. Person X claims that because it is not illegal to own slaves, that there is no problem whatsoeve

And since it has been removed, I can't watch the video and make my own judgment about what was said. Because I think as usual, the prosecutor is doing the prosecutor thing and using the protect the children bullshit witch hunt to boost his political career.

Of course, the stupid ignorant easily swayed with two bit opinions dipshit public will crucify this poor guy and his life is forever fucked. Even if he's exonerated - he's fucked.

We are not a free country anymore, no thanks to our draconian sex, drug and terrorism laws.

Generally, model releases are needed for pay. You can take a picture of anyone, as long as they do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy. A school is a public place, hence no real expectation for privacy. He just can't make money, directly, off of it. At least, that is how I have read the statutes to be.

They guy made a crude joke. WAY too many people have gone WAY overboard on this. Our society is being put into a straight jacket. Humor has ALWAYS had more wiggle room, than most other forms of speech. But, the way too important people are even stifling humor. It is really pathetic.

Jailhouse lawyer: A man who had the law on his side and could prove it... though it did him no good, as he was convicted regardless, by people who would taunt you because you're a known extrovert whose sister is a thespian.

He lied his way in - and that makes it a criminal trespass.

Then you'll have no problem citing the Michigan law which he violated. Because I sure can't find it under "trespass" in the Michigan penal code.

What's even bad taste about it? TF summary links to six examples of the same thing. It's a common joke. Having a character do or say something inappropriate in front of children has been done forever.

This is just some retarded prosecutor thinking a clip of someone using dirty words in front of children is the same as a clip of someone actually fucking the children. This is just moronic. Saying "fuck" in front of little Billy is not the same as fucking little Billy.

So what every commenter so far is saying is that this "Harmless" "Bad taste" joke in no way victimizes the kids. That's absurd. At what point does it become victimization then. If he had actually done the song in front of the kids and filmed it, would they be victims. If he had made a movie where he abused the kids, would that be wrong, even if it was not real. Get a sense of law and morality, there are few victimless crimes, this is not one of them. The kids are victims, because they did not consent to something that in reality would have been damaging, libelous, and subject to prosecution. Computers and technology do not give free reign to virtually create abusive depictions without consequences. Good grief, I cannot believe the support yielded to this shithead on/.

If it was damaging and libelous, then why is he being charged criminally under pedophelia laws? Shouldn't he be subject to civil prosecution for libel instead? These kids aren't "victims" just because you say they are, any more than an adult would be a "victim". A 20 year sentence is WAY WAY out of line for this supposed crime.

When did "sexually explicit" go from participating in sexual acts to just saying sexually themed things? Next thing you know, thinking dirty thoughts near children will be a crime.

The fact of the matter is, whether the guy actually did it in front of the children, or merely post-edited to make it look like he did, he should not be considered a sex offender. He didn't actually have sex with the children, or even have sex (with an adult) in view of the children. He is facing 20 years in prison for making a bad joke. People who actually had sex with children have gotten shorter prison sentences.

This hysteria has gone too far. It's one thing to investigate this video, determine that not only was no sexual act involving children committed but in fact the video was edited after the fact, and then drop the investigation. It's entirely another thing to decide to charge the creator of the video with sexual abuse of a minor. If successful, this will literally destroy this person as a human being. Assuming he survives the prison time (which most likely will involve frequent, genuine sexual abuse), he will be placed on the sex offender registry, which is essentially a life sentence. He will not be able to live or approach anywhere near any place that has anything to do with children (i.e., most of the country), his name will be publicly and legally slandered in perpetuity, and he will be unable to secure any meaningful employment. Even if the prosecution fails, his name will have been dragged the mud so badly that he may be disowned by his family and forced to move.

All for what? Because some child somewhere may have possibly been exposed to some slightly disturbing words? Even if the video genuinely showed some guy talking trash to children, chances are they didn't understand it or found him silly and ridiculous. Children are remarkably resilient to such things.

While I agree that it should be illegal to tell bad jokes, and a 20-year prison term sounds like a pretty sufficient penalty, I... wait, what? Are you retarded? We can't have comedic material unless it's suitable for a child audience?

Everyone had the "impression" that the child was still in the scene while Randall was ordering the pornography. Not that i agree, but that all these retarded legislators need. Normaly the "and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:" should be fine.

Second off, legally speaking, it is not illegal to "sing profanity to children" so long as it is, "indecent, but not obscene." Obviously, had he actually been singing to these kids the obscenities used in the song (or, at least, stated that were used in the song as no one seems to be able to find a copy of it) than that could be grounds for an obscenity charge.

As it stands, this is likely to settle, get thrown out, land the guy in jail for much

Please remember that this is Michigan, which is the same state that took one hundred and five years to eliminate a law that prohibited using foul language in the presence of women and children [firstamendmentcenter.org] -- a law that stood on the books until 2002. A law under which a man was successfully convicted after the canoe he was traveling in hit a rock and dumped him (and presumably, his stuff) into the drink, producing the sort of surprise and inconvenience that I think would cause most people